April 29, 2008

Jeremiah Wright is "angry at Barack Obama for trying to be disingenuous," said Newt Gingrich. Wright is outraged that Obama tried to suppress and minimize him. Asked if Wright was trying to hurt Obama, Newt said: "I think Reverend Wright has a greater investment in his own self-importance than he does in Senator Obama's victory." Yes, Reverend Wright is on a tear. He's an egomaniac lit afire by this opportunity of a lifetime.

But I seea way for this awful problem to help Obama. It ties back to the original reason he became so popular. Obama seemed to offer a path out of the old-style racial politics that is based on grievances and demands and race as victimhood. Obama did not talk about race. He was black but he didn't talk about race. Now, Wright is rubbing our faces in the racial issues that Obama didn't want to talk about, and maybe he was disingenuous for submerging these things. But if Obama loses, Wright and his ilk will be magnified. They will have been instrumental in destroying Obama, yet they will use fact that Americans rejected Obama to reinforce their critique of America.

The message Obama needs to convey is: Take me now, whatever my flaws, or you will be saddled with people like Wright for decades. If we are disgusted by Wright, we shouldn't reject Obama. We should embrace him as the best hope we're ever going to have.

But the best hope of what?... Obama has been thrown up there like a litmus test to prove how racist the nation still is or isn't. And if you question his judgment or maturity or readiness, that becomes a checkmark on the "racist" side. That's infuriating. In fact, it could be argued that to judge Obama as sternly as you'd judge any human being who wanted to be president is less racist than insisting he be elected to prove we're not racist!

I have often said that we need to test Obama, and that letting him off easy is basically racist. But here my point is that his becoming President would quell the power of the Wrights of this world and we might overcome what will otherwise be a long impasse on race.

If we are disgusted by Wright, we shouldn't reject Obama. We should embrace him as the best hope we're ever going to have.

That . . . that's the best we can do? That's pretty sad. I'm pretty sure that's also not true. After all, now that Obama has set the bar so low, it's not like we'd have to wait particularly long for someone else to come along. There must be hundreds of Black state legislators just itching to get elected to the national Senate and start immediately on their Presidential campaign. I'm sure at least some of them attend normal churches where the pastor doesn't preach hate and racial resentment, or bizarro 1930's theories about how African brains are different from European brains.

We could have another candidate just like this one but better in four years, easy. That's how long it took for Obama to rise from total obscurity to the top.

We'll get stuck with the worst of both worlds. We'll get a President who is unwilling to cut lose racists and antisemites for whatever reason. Thanks but no thanks. The race hustlers will still be with us regardless of whether Obama wins or loses.

But Obama always agrees with the race baiters, albeit on a tonier level, like decrying the SCOTUS decision that requiring voter ID is not oppressive.

So Obama seems to be one of them. He's just letting Wright do the demogauging for him. And questions like the ones at the Press Club finally are the racial conversations we should be having. It may deal the death blow to the whole ideology.

I don't see this working for Obama in that way. For one I don't think the "original reason" he became so popular is going to help him regain or grow in popularity now. Maybe something else will, but that card's been played.

If this were 1968 and the Rev. Wright was George Wallace's white minister ranting about the genetic differences between black and white people, thundering about FDR's connivance in Pearl Harbor, warning us of the Commie conspiracy to fluoridate water ala the Tuskegee Experiments, and calling Shirley Chisolm a "skeeze," he'd be laughed out of the universe, along with any education professor who praised Sacco and Vanzetti and mad bomber George Matesky.

When I saw Rev. Wright's performance yesterday, all I could think was "What a smirky wisenheimer!" It did nothing to change my negative perception of the man.

My theory: It's sabotage by the Rev. Wright, since if Obama gets elected, all of the whining about how racist and unfair America is goes right out the window, since Americans would have just elected a black man to the highest office in the land.

At that point, all of the racial grievance mongers like the various Revs. Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc., are out of a job. Their services would no longer be required. Not just that, but if Obama can succeed, that means that ALL black people could no longer blame "Whitey" for any failures to succeed in life; they would have to take personal responsibility rather than just being helpless victims of a racist society.

Now, Obama's campaign had set Rev. Wright up with some PR firm, but I suspect this isn't the result they anticipated. If Obama is smart, he does a major league Sister Souljah on Wright, and can pull a political jujitsu move by completely disowning Wright and quitting his church for one that is more mainstream. If he doesn't, he can kiss off the votes of most white independents, and probably quite a few white Democrats as well. He would be McGoverned in November, assuming that the superdelegates aren't smart enough to push him aside as damaged goods at the convention.

One more thing: I saw some people saying that Wright can't be "anti-American" because he's a former Marine. Well, so was Lee Harvey Oswald. Being a veteran does not give a free pass for future bad behavior.

It is quite dismaying, the extent to which contemporary presidential politics, as well as the electorate -- and people who comment on such things -- have sunk to such levels of idiocy.

This is what presidential politics is all about today, huh? Before it was flag burning, Willie Horton, pledge of allegiance, and now it is Rev. Wright (which is only part of a larger piece of who-can-be-most-offended-by-someone's remarks-today).

All totally irrelevent to the issues or to the qualifications for the office. And yet, folks go on and on such that this pointlessness is what the election may turn on. Depressing is what it is, that folks will do anything to avoid discussing real matters of substance.

And now you have folks who try to puff up their own self-proclaimed "patriotism" by smearing and belittling the Marine Corps, etc. by pointing out that occasionally some unsavory persons were members of the military. Such a display of contempt for servicemen and -women hardly shows any love for country, and instead betrays their own contempt for this country.

Obama is in a box, since he has already stated that he can no more disown Wright than his grandmother. There will be no Sista Soljah moment with Wright.

Instead, Obama is going to have to do some serious ju-jitsu. For me, the most enjoyable moments in ju-jitsu come when your opponent is attacking you and you literally use his energy against him to send him flying. The problem of course is that sometimes you take some damage while waiting for the moment to take your opponent out. Or, to use another reference, sometimes Darth Vader is mortally wounded when he throws the Emperor off the balcony.

I see this whole "controversy" as fake...ginned up by the rightwing lunatic fringe and its lapdogs in the mainstream media, (the "fringe" has metastisized and now constitutes the corpus, it seems, of the Republican Party), simply in order to smear a candidate they fear will defeat McCain.

Frankly, I haven't heard anything said by Wright that is not true, and, in any event, he is far more palatable and on firmer intellectual ground than the extremist preachers who support the right wing, such paragons of virtue as the now deceased Jerry Falwall, Pat Robertson, and John Hagee, who has endorsed McCain. Where is the mainstream discussion fretting about McCain's "problem" with Hagee?

Baloney. First, here's why the Wright issue matters: Because he is one of the people who has been highly influential on Obama's world view, as he wrote in his book. If you want to know what kind of a person someone is, look at his friends, the people he chooses to surround himself with. I realize that almost all polticians have shady characters around them. Hillary has more than a few. The difference between hers and Obama's is that several of the latter seem to deeply dislike this country. Wright is not the only one.

And in no way was I "belittling" the Marine Corps, I was simply stating a fact: Being a veteran does not give a free pass for future bad behavior. I stand by that statement.

Some blacks advance the lobster pot theory of upward social mobility. The lobster pot theory holds that if one lobster starts to climb out of the pot, the other lobsters grab him and pull him back into the pot. Al Sharpton is now criticizing Obama for not taking a more militant stance on the Sean Bell case.

The message Obama needs to convey is: Take me now, whatever my flaws, or you will be saddled with people like Wright for decades. If we are disgusted by Wright, we shouldn't reject Obama. We should embrace him as the best hope we're ever going to have.

Translated: Take me now.....or else.

That type of threat: "Give me a cookie or I'll throw a temper tantrum" didn't work when my daughter was 3 years old. It really really shouldn't work for a collective group of grown ups. If you give in to the 3 year old's temper tantrums, you will have created an unruly delinquent teenager who has no respect for rules or the feelings of others. Chaos instead of a household living in peace and harmony.

Elect Obama or else we will be threatened with more racial hatred from Wright and his like? Elect Obama or else we will burn down your cities with racial rioting? Right.... Elect Obama out of fear and not because he is really qualified to be President. Elect Obaman, because he presents a pleasing calm exterior and don't even question what is really on the inside. Elect Obama......you God Damned racist white honkeys .....or else.

Problem is it appears he was duped by a person he trusted. Badly. Hardly a trait people are looking for in a Presidential candidate. And if he jettisons Wright now the question is whether he can be trusted to spot divisive characters.

Bender: Rev. Wright (which is only part of a larger piece of who-can-be-most-offended-by-someone's remarks-today). All totally irrelevent to the issues or to the qualifications for the office.

Obama worships at a church that believes "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy". Most Americans find that relevent.

And now you have folks who try to puff up their own self-proclaimed "patriotism" by smearing and belittling the Marine Corps, etc. by pointing out that occasionally some unsavory persons were members of the military

Oh bullshit. If anyone here smeared the Corps, I would have been all over their ass. What people were pointing out is that military service does not shield Wright from criticism of his racist hate-mongering.

Wouldn't Obama have to reject Wright first in order to rationally support Obama as the rejection of Wright. He has not by word done this. And Obama can no more do this than to reject his white grandmother and blacks in total, this according to Obama's Philadelphia speech. And he cannot in deed do this, for his deeds, twenty years in the church, substantial contributions, collecting Wright's videos and using them for rhetoric practice, naming his book after a Wright sermon, baptizing his children under Wright's hands, etc... are cast. Obama went to Hyde Park and become a Hyde Park/South Side politician. I like Obama, so I believe he did all this half-heartedly. I don't believe he believes like Wright believes that Farakkan is one of the great men of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. But he chose to live in Farakkan's backyard and chose a church which in word and deed does believe these kinds of things. Obama used Wright, quietly but audaciously. Why is anyone surprised Wright is using Obama? The two are tied at the hip, in words and deeds. Taking one, either one, can't get rid of the other. Obama should've set up shop away from the Civil War and the Great Migration, say Denver. And if it had to be Chicago, at the very least, the North Side.

I'm sure the large number of black Baptist congregations will be happy that you called them bigoted, dtl. 'cause nothing says anti-bigotry like taking whole religious groups and labeling them with your own hateful projections!

You believe that Black brains are genetically different than White brains? (Never mind that the world is not divided into black and white and that there is a sliding scale of superficial racial characteristics.) The last time someone advanced this theory the feces hit the oscillating mechanism because the proposer were melanin challenged otherwise it is OK to be racist??? Maybe you believe that black people can't swim and white guys can't jump?

You believe that the US government invented AIDS for the purpose of genocide on poor Blacks? Hmmm what about all those upper income white guys in SF that have AIDS?

You believe that drug use in "black" neighborhoods is a plot by the US Government? (Nevermind that the largest growing usage of drugs in the form of Meth is in white rural areas)

You believe that 9-11 where thousands of completely innocent people of all races were killed and thousands more left maimed and losing their loved ones, and that God Damn America and thereby all the people who live in it, is in the Bible?

You beleive that every "white" person is a racist secretly or openly longing for the suppression of black people. (Nevermind that the world is comprised of not just black and white but also Asians, Hispanics, Indians and many many other groups that have been oppressed including people from "white" Europe)

Johnannarbor - I will LOUDLY say that all baptist congregations are bigoted. Including black ones. Do you think I really give a rat's ass who I'm offending by saying that. Sometimes the truth hurts - deal with it.

I think Kerry's demonstrably false 1970s testimony before Congress did that for him. You know, all levels of command, rape, cut off ears, etc. Smearing all vets--his "Band of Brothers!"--of Vietnam as psychopathic war criminals.

All that needed to be done was quote it, play the audio. And it was done, and Kerry was trapped by his own words.

You are reaching Ann. Obama has spoken and written about what an influence Wright was in his career and life. It doesn't matter--to me, and I'm guessing many others--if he suddenly disavows everything Wrights says and has said. He would have to explain why he only did so when he reached the national stage and when it started to affect him negatively. I say "would have to" but lets be honest--there's nothing he can say.

Which is why he is in such a pickle. Which is why Clinton, who should have been long gone, still has hopes and chances at winning the nomination. Which is why people are bending themselves into pretzels, like you did with this post, to come up with ways that having long-term relationship with an anti-American racist will help his political standing.

I think Ann is right, that "if Obama loses, Wright and his ilk will be magnified," but that is a negative proposition. It points to a politics of extortion that Obama can't leverage; if he even makes a step in that direction, he degrades himself. Only true believers would still believe in his good faith.

I would think it's sadly clear, by this point, that Obama cannot be a transformative figure. Wright and his ilk will be with us for decades no matter what Obama does.

If Obama goes to Washington as president, it's not like he turns immediately to marble and gets stuck on a plinth. He will actually have to govern, and the press will use the ilk as the sounding board for every social issue he touches.

Dust Bunny is horrified that someone would say that black brains and white brains are different.

Unless it's written by a Republican, as in "The Bell Curve" then its ok.

Johnannarbor - Kerry was not attacked for his address to congress. That would have been legitimate. He was attacked for lying about his war record, even though those attacks were proven to be false.

Obama is not being attacked for racist things he has said. That would be legitimate. Instead, he's being attacked for things his preacher has said - which is totally illegitimate. His preacher is not running for President. Obama is.

Regardless - Democrats would be fools to nominate a black man. America is racist, and they need to deal with it and nominate a white person,.

Fen: I hear you. I'm cranky because I'm so tired of being put in a box.

The media is so lazy. If I hear someone say "Obama has a problem with blue collar voters" one more time... What do you call a man who works as a garbage truck driver who is black? Is he not "blue collar?" Oh wait, only white people can be blue collar. What do you call Blue Moon, who believes in a resurrected Jesus? Oh wait, only white people can be evangelical. Just like it is a crying shame that rural white people vote GOP ("What's the Mattter with Kansas?"), but when Madonna votes for democrats, she's a genius for "transcending petty self-interest." The media loves nuance, unless the situation actually calls for nuanced thinking. Then it's time to go to shorthand stereotypes.

Frankly, I haven't heard anything said by Wright that is not true, and, in any event, he is far more palatable and on firmer intellectual ground than the extremist preachers who support the right wing, such paragons of virtue as the now deceased Jerry Falwall, Pat Robertson, and John Hagee, who has endorsed McCain. Where is the mainstream discussion fretting about McCain's "problem" with Hagee?

Two things here.

One: Wright didn't randomly endorse Obama. If he had, Obama could have simply said, "I don't agree with his views," and this would have been a non-issue. Obama went to Wright's church for how many years? He quoted and praised him in writings. There are pictures of him hugging Wright at book signings. Obama doesn't have to explain Wright's comments because they are both black or some other nonsense. He has to explain them because he they've had a spiritual, mentor relationship for many years.

Two: Nothing Wright has said is wrong? Someone above made a good list of just how absurd that statement is, but I'll just take the 9/11 comment. If you really think New York had it coming because of US international policy (which is sad) do you really think it is a wise political strategy to say that? Please, please, please, run a campaign against me with the slogan, "9/11: Those bastards in New York had it coming." Outside of Berkeley, where is that going to play well?

I haven't heard Wright say all those things. I've heard only the things that the media is headlining. Aside from snippets of a sermon he gave on America's purveyance of terrorism that I saw on Moyers the other night--the whole of which snippet I found sensible and accurate--I actually am only familiar with the media's characterization of Wright's words, as is the case, I'm sure, are most citizens. There's no way the media might mischaracterize Wright's remarks, is there?

I will look into the documentation of what Wright has actually said; if he has said the things you assert, I will obviously have to disagree with him. But, until I see the evidence, I don't know he has said those things.

This aside, the question remains: why isn't there so-called national concern--that is, a fabricated controversy--over some of the remarks made over time by the preachers I've mentioned?

As every white person knows, including myself, we are only responsible for our own actions and our own words. Not those of others. And as every white person knows, blacks think collectively. They are all part of the same groupthink. All blacks are racist. And they are dangerous criminals too. Blacks are scary. But sometimes we get a nice, "articulate" black man. They are the exception. They're ok. Until we find out that they hang out with scary black men too,. Then we realize that we were right all along. All black people are crazy nutcases. We know this because they shout in church.

Fen: I hear you. I'm cranky because I'm so tired of being put in a box.

The media is so lazy. If I hear someone say "Obama has a problem with blue collar voters" one more time... What do you call a man who works as a garbage truck driver who is black? Is he not "blue collar?" Oh wait, only white people can...

Another black people oppression!

The way out of the box is to proclaim often and loudly that Obama, Wright and their ilk are are despicable charlatans.

Presto, you're out of the box.

But wait! Maybe Obama can get something for you, some perceived advantage or other. Never mind.

I will echo downtownlad: Wright never said "New York had it coming." (I'll point out I stood watching mere blocks from the WTC as the second tower was hit. I'm hardly speaking from any safe remove from potential terrorist attacks.)

He pointed out, very sensibly, that a nation that commits terrorism around the world--as we do and have done--will bring upon itself the wrath of that world, and some will try and will succeed in attacking us. As he said, "Hatred begets hatred, violence begets violence." None of the violence is justified, but it is to be expected.

America has simply always felt itself invulnerable to such retaliation--and most citizens are ignorant of the violence we do in the world--and we can't get over that anyone might want to hurt us.

"McCain's favorite preacher"... Not very intelligent but bold, i.e. not subtle. Creating a soundbyte, thus thinking in soundbytes, as one argues against soundbytes and the idiots taken in by soundbytes. Chutzpah par excellence.

The difference between hers and Obama's is that several of the latter seem to deeply dislike this country. Wright is not the only one.

Obama's questionable associates deeply dislike (1) white racism and (2) military intervention in foreign countries. I would humbly submit that these are not fundamental parts of the United States of America; that although our country was founded by slavemasters we got over it, and that we pretty much limited military intervention to our own hemisphere for most of our history.

He is a United States Senator whose former minister believes that Franklin Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor.

I read this in the staunchly Republican Chicago Tribune many times as a kid. Are you arguing Colonel McCormick was some kind of nut?

Where is the mainstream discussion fretting about McCain's "problem" with Hagee?

Damn straight! I want to know why McCain sat in those pews for 20 years listening to Hagee's sermons.

The parallel situation to McCain's would be if Obama had never met Wright, but rushed to kiss his ring to get an endorsement to attract the black vote. Instead, Obama had a twenty year relationship where the preacher's good far, far outweighed the bad.

But he chose to live in Farakkan's backyard

Obama chose to live in Justice Stevens' back yard as well. Senator Douglas, Congressman/DCCOA Judge/Presidential Counsel Mikva -- all those Lakefront Liberals live within strolling distance of the University of Chicago, Jimmy's Woodlawn Tap, Powell's Bookstore, etc. In fact, Barack lives across the street from a beautiful synagogue.

johnannarbor's argument applies with equal force to Obama:

jaa: McCain is not a baptist(anybody): But he's gone to a baptist church for years.jaa: That doesn't mean he embraces baptist doctrine.

Anybody: Obama is colorblindObama-hater: But he's gone to a racist church for years.Anybody: That doesn't mean he embraces racist doctrine.

Stop lying Dan. Show me the quote where Wright said New York had it coming. He never said it.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

I think that statement is pretty clear. The US had (in his opinion) bad policies overseas and now, not surprisingly to him, we get hit in our own backyard. America's chickens are coming home to roost--we had it coming.

And I know this is the internet, but personal insults do not form the basis for a valid argument. I'm not lying. If you doubted Wright ever said what I attributed to him, ask me for a source. I'm sure Ann appreciates intelligent comments over "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

Ann, your effort to see a silver lining is laudable, but your argument is pretty much no more than a wish.

Robert Cook, Wright believes that the US government created the AIDS virus to destroy black people. Among other crack pot ideas. He's a loon, and he's not realy that bright. He just talks dramatically, that's all.

Clyde, as a Marine I agree whole heartedly with your comment. Being a Marine does not make one right, it does not make one good. It's important to distinguish military achievements with philosophical stances. They don't go together.

People need to get over Wright. He doesn't speak for Obama, he speaks for himself. They aren't Obama's words, they're Wright's. I've hung out with plenty of unsavory idiots and that doesn't mean I share their beliefs!

I have to wonder what everyone would be talking about if it weren't for Wright. Everyone who is so disgusted with Wright wasn't going to vote for Obama anyways, so why should we care what they're screaming about today, tomorrow, or 6 months from now? Because believe me, in 6 months, they'll find something else to scream about.

Dan, it's a bit of a looney stretch (albeit a popular one) to say that we support terrorism against Palestinians and to conflate that with a justification or expectation that our skyscrapers should be melted. This is moral equivalence at its worst.

Dan, it's a bit of a looney stretch (albeit a popular one) to say that we support terrorism against Palestinians and to conflate that with a justification or expectation that our skyscrapers should be melted. This is moral equivalence at its worst.

Saying that we deserved to be attacked for our support of Israel would be looney unjustified moral equivalence. Saying that our support of Israel would mean that our ally's enemies would become our enemies is simple common sense. Common sense would have put us on our guard after the first time the WTC was attacked, when a rental van filled with explosives was parked underneath.

Dust Bunny is horrified that someone would say that black brains and white brains are different.

Unless it's written by a Republican, as in "The Bell Curve" then its ok

I'm not horrified in the least. Everyone's brains are different and it isn't necissarily a racial thing. For instance, I have some level of Aspergers as does my brother who has a condition very similar to that of the son of Thomas Sowell

It is also a scientific fact that most women are not as good in math as women. Using the "bell curve" the numbers of women on the far right side of the math genius curve are very small. Despite the vapors that that caused in some academic feminists... it is still a scientific fact.

What I am horrified about is that race baiters like Rev Wright are given a pass by making unscientific racist stereotypes while others are raked over the coals with their publications of studies some of which the validity is questionable. As long as you're a black person, racism is OK and you can speak the unspeakable.

The double standard is staggering and frankly, I'm sick to death with it and all the political correctness baggage that we are supposed to be dragging around with us.

For Robert Cook. All you have to do is to Google the NAACP and Press Club speeches that Wright just did a few days ago.

"If we are disgusted by Wright, we shouldn't reject Obama. We should embrace him as the best hope we're ever going to have."

The best hope we're ever going to have? Not by a long shot. I am disgusted by Wright, I am not disgusted by Obama. His policies are too liberal and will create problems for America.

I disagree, I think there are more experienced and less socialist leaning minotrity candidates. Someone get Thomas Sowell to run, Condi could do a good job, Bobby Jindal has promise. Heck even Colin Powell would be better and he is not a Conservative.

Obama is in a box, since he has already stated that he can no more disown Wright than his grandmother. There will be no Sista Soljah moment with Wright.

For those who hope Obama can talk his way out of his association with Wright, the comment above is the truth that can't be evaded. He had one chance to distance himself from Wright and he screwed it up. The media was so swayed by the beauty of his words, they didn't pick up on the mush at his "race" speech's core.

Instead, Obama is going to have to do some serious ju-jitsu. For me, the most enjoyable moments in ju-jitsu come when your opponent is attacking you and you literally use his energy against him to send him flying.

But I don't see Obama's demise playing out via a series of frontal assaults on his association with Wright. I predict the coming primaries will show that really not much more needs to be said, by anyone, if they're opposed to Wright. What's happened this week will cause a lot of voters who were Obama voters to become non-voters or Hillary voters. If Obama still gets the nomination, the same process will play out to McCain's benefit.

Obama's the one who has to make the next move. If he says nothing, there's nothing Hillary or McCain need to say about it directly.

Instead, they'll raise questions about Obama's strength and readiness for the office, which will resonate persuasively. That's where Wright has damaged him the most. He's made Obama look really, really weak. And he doesn't have some past "profile in courage" to present in his own defense.

Althouse, this is a nice try, nice 'out of the box' thinking, but it doesn't work.

Where is the mainstream discussion fretting about McCain's "problem" with Hagee?

As far as I know, Hagee hates the Catholic Church which by my estimation, would put him in good company with liberals and atheists. Catholics hardly comprise the mainstream in America anyway.

Then again, calling the Catholic Church the 'Whore of Babylon' really doesn't have the same impact on the mainstream as the US of KKKA. Or that using the A-Bomb to end WW2 and Imperial Japan, who last time I checked STARTED the war with the US somehow justified 9/11 (chickens coming home to roost).

Hagee may be anti-Catholic but to my knowledge he isn't a racist. Unless of course Catholicism has been bestowed 'racehood' like Muslims.

Wright is a racist pig who evidently has bullshitted enough of his flock to believe in white oppression while he lives in a multi-million dollar gated home.

John McCain will heal the racial divide in this country. John McCain is a true humanitarian. The Republican party is the party of compassion and real Christianity. John McCain has shown real courage in addressing the problems of ALL Americans. John McCain shows the forward-thinking vision that will build a foundation for America's continuing prosperity for years to come.

John McCain has never listened to any controversial words. He has never associated with unsavory characters. He shows incredible intellectual prowess and courage.

John McCain is white. He is "normal" and does not disrespect imaginary rednecks. John McCain can make rich right-wing journalists feel comfortable that no imaginary rednecks anywhere are being condescended to. John McCain believes America is a shining city on a hill whose immaculate history is free of human error and indecency. Through the pride and devotion of shining warrior John McCain, McCamerica will stand astride the world for a million generations to come, unchallenged. The White House will be secure and remain un-blown-up by the Democrat racist terrorist marxist.

John McCain is not a racist and has a dark-skinned daughter that he protects from the brutal Democrat press vultures at all times. If she is seen by the cameras John McCain will eat the eyeballs of all who see the picture. That's a promise to you, America.

I had the thought, yesterday, with all the Wright news - that this thing could go full circle. The more he talks, the more Wright marginalizes himself and his message and this could actually work to Obama's advantage.

John McCain believes America is a shining city on a hill whose immaculate history is free of human error and indecency.

I'll repeat what I said yesterday: There's nothing wrong with pointing out problems in America, large or small, past or present. McCain does, too. The problem with Wright is that he acts like nothing's RIGHT in America. Nothing at all.

Actually, franglosaxon, I don't think Obama is that great of a politician. He had a good money raising machine that capitalizes on the three things I mentioned--I'd even suggest that most his money making is entirely due to simply being the person perceived to be able to beat Hillary.

When you watch his behavior, it becomes really obvious that he's political rank amateur. Without a corrupt Chicago political machine, he'd still be a nobody.

Moreover, he doesn't have very much respect from other politicians--quite to the contrary, many democrats in the Senate are quite pissed at how he jumps into issues at the last minute and makes claims of being involved from the beginning. He claims to work across the aisle, yet does nothing of the sort. His voting record betrays him as an utter hypocrite.

No, it's Obama's problem. Because a lot of people react to that kind of stuff. A good portion of the people in this country. It's okay, I suppose, to write off all those people but not if you want to win an election as the president of such a people. Obama cannot straddle disdain and esteem for too much longer. He has to choose one side for himself, and that will mean alienating a portion of those who have supported him.

Former Law Student, I know the area well. Especially the inside of Jimmy's. Your point is well taken. And the folks you mention are much worth mentioning. Though I doubt their rise through Chicago politics meant kissing the ring of Wright, and lets not beat around the bush, Wright's church is in part what it is because it is in Farakkan's backyard. You can get elected Senator of Illinois from Hyde Park and the South Side as a member of such civic entanglements, but not President of the United States. Which is why I think it is a shame that Obama boxed himself in in this way. I like the guy. Might even vote for him still. Can't see him winning though.

he harnessed the power of new technology to build the most effective political fundraising operation of all time

Obama did this? Or did he happen to be running for president in the next cycle after Howard Dean did this?

I don't think Obama is so much an internet innnovator as he is the lucky lab rat who benefited from getting the medicine instead of the placebo, and the medicine worked.

His success on the internet is just one more a manifestation of the over-the-moon hopes that millions of voters invested in him. That phase is basically over. Wright has killed the buzz. Well, Wright and a few other things, like the NAFTA flap, the fishiness about whether he is really committed to withdrawing from Iraq on a "timetable," Bill Ayers, and a growing awareness that he is promising big things he has no record of ever having accomplished himself.

John-- Yes, Obama did this. Among the reasons he has overwhelming support among youth is that he understands technology and the internet. Otherwise, why hasn't John McCain done the same? Why hasn't Hillary? (she caught on, but is far from matching).

While the bloviators bloviate, the haters hate, the hypocrites spew their poison, the Obama campaign, under the leadership of Barack Obama himself, has seized the future of the Democratic party, and due to demographic trends, of the country. Win or lose this cycle. Sorry hater.

Ann, if you think this is good for Obama (except in the minds of the kool-aid drinkers) or if you think we ought to embrace Obama over this, you're mad as the proverbial hatter!

1. Given the comments Wright made on Obama 'doing what politicians do', one cannot honestly regard even the most thorough-going repudiation of Wright as anything other than political calculation -- smooth the ruffled feathers of the nice white folks....

2. Obama had a chance to throughly repudiate Wright in Philadelphia last month. He didn't.

3. Obama spent TWENTY YEARS with Wright -- there is no way he was not at least not adverse to what Wright was preaching.

I don't see how the Althouse strategy would work. Wright in and of himself is not really the issue. Obama's judgment is the issue.

Wright has clearly shown himself for what he is. Wright's theology and his church's tenants predate Obama's joining the church. Obama was even warned by other ministers before he joined the church that Wright and his church was radical.

Knowing all this Obama then made the choice and ongoing choices to spend over 20 years at that church.

So it is not that Obama is personally responsible for Wright's views and beliefs. But, Obama most certainly is responsible for his own beliefs and decisions pertaining to Wright and his ongoing choice of church.

Certainly, if Wright and his church had instead been shown to be good instead of bad (in the view of the electorate), Obama's judgment would be rightfully lauded for having chosen to align his beliefs with those of Wright and his church.

It is not wrong then to question Obama's political judgment for his choices in aligning himself so closely for so long to a person and a church that a large number of voters view with disdain.

If loving him is wrong I wanna be like Rev WrightIf being Wright means being without youI'd rather live a wrong doing lifeYour mama and daddy say it's a shameIt's a downright disgraceLong as I got him by my sideI don't care what you people say

Your friends tell you there's no futureIn following a racist manIf I can't scorn you when I want toI'll see you when I winIf loving him is wrong I wanna be like Rev. WrightIf loving him is wrong I wanna be like Rev. Wright

Rev. Dennis Wiley and Rev. Dr. Christine Wiley, a married African-American couple, preside at the 600-member Covenant Baptist Church in Southwest D.C. In addition to offering gay congregants a supportive place to worship, the church also operates an HIV/AIDS ministry.

2) [Part about the righteousness of killing blackmailers deleted because it seems to be the only sort of thing Ann will censor other than the N-word] Bad for black people. IMHO.

3) To all you tu-quoque'ing, trolling, lying or genuinely stupid people dominating this discussion:

Is it more important to you that Obama win, or that Wright and the apparent Wrightian tenets should be upheld?

Are there any of you who prefer Hillary but defend Wright and Obama's reaction out of some principle?

Whether Obama wins or loses, will anything refute your presumption that America is a racist country, racist in a way that every other country in the world isn't racist?

Will the answer to the above be different if Obama wins or loses to HRC or to McCain?

4) It is really not a good use of time to refute the blather here. Certainly not necessary to clear out the echo chamber. Just know that these stances will make him lose. That's why I asked if you'd rather Obama "be Wright" than President.

But since lalalala-you-are-not-listening, I guess we'll see in November, or earlier at the Democratic convention. You've been warned.

TEN POINTS Co-Pastoral leadership by Drs. Dennis and Christine Wiley. An inclusive congregation where all are welcome, regardless of race, ethnicity, class, gender, age, or sexual orientation.A congregation where our African heritage is unapologetically affirmed and celebrated. A congregation committed to the liberation of oppressed peoples everywhere. A congregation dedicated to helping every child of God realize his/her full, God-given potential. A congregation devoted to serving and developing the community through the "hands-on" ministry of every member. A congregation committed to social-political action and advocacy on a local, national, and international level. A congregation dedicated to the economic empowerment of Black people in our own community and beyond. A congregation where creativity and openness to new and innovative ways of worship and ministry are encouraged. A "warm and loving" congregation where every member is a minister who is committed to implementing the vision through our five major ministries of Christian Education, Evangelism and Outreach, Nurture, Stewardship, and Worship and Intercession

It appears that Obama has made an attempt to Soljah the good rev. I am outraged (nudge nudge wink wind) so says Obama. I suspect it is too little, too late--He comes across as undecisive and blowing in the political winds. Bye Bye Obama. He is making the superdelegates job easier by the hour.

I don’t believe that there are many out there that believe, as Wright does – or says –– that there’s nothing right in America. There are definitely things that could be better and I think that when Obama speaks to this issue, that’s how he’ll address it. I don’t think he needs to take a side – while alienating another. There’s a lot of gray in between and I think a lot of people can shown that. Yes, the reality is that it’s now Obama’s problem – but I guess my point is - is that the ‘problem’ is really in the reaction. Our reaction created the problem – not Wright.

What this entire incident shows is that Obama has consistently surrounded himself with extremists and radicals and is perfectly comfortable in their company.

He's an updated version of the line from the '80s Official Lawyer's Handbook: instead of dress British and think Yiddish, Obama's speak IVY and think jivvy or dress Hart, Schaffner Marx and think Karl Marx.

Among the reasons he has overwhelming support among youth is that he understands technology and the internet. Otherwise, why hasn't John McCain done the same? Why hasn't Hillary? (she caught on, but is far from matching).

It's the other way around. The college kids overwhelmingly favor him, and they live on the internet. The kids, on their own, have built impressive content about Obama, but Obama himself had little to do with it other than being their most-admired politician. He's the object of desire.

There's nothing particularly special about Obama's website. It's nice, but in terms of how people read the internet, it fails to be authentic, transparent or truly interactive, the signal virtues of the internet. His blog doesn't allow comments, for example. You see a lot of position papers, but you don't see discussions on the issues. He doesn't dare have a wiki or an unmoderated bulletin board. It's all spin. Sure, you can go on his site and find out when the next rally is, but that's no different from going on Wal-Mart's site to find out when the next store opening is.

I've read a lot about McCain's online sessions with bloggers -- does Obama do this? I haven't read a single word about it if he does, but I'm sure you can enlighten me.

To me, Obama is the classic lockdown candidate whose every utterance is controlled by his campaign's spin doctors. He doesn't talk to the press -- he issues statements, carefully drafted by the campaign. He gives a great speech, but is boring or worse in debates, and plays not to lose instead of to win. The internet is not his friend. A lot of bloggers on the left are highly suspicious of him, or ambivalent at best. He has benefited from the fact that some bloggers truly despise Hillary, but for most of them, Obama was their second choice after Edwards.

Obama's appeal to youth has to do with the idealism of his initial message, the "yes we can" stuff. There is a hunger in this country to transcend the racial divide that some see as holding us back. There is a hunger among liberals for a leader they don't have to apologize for. There is a hunger among all voters for a president we can respect and believe after eight years of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and eight years of Billary before that. Obama's campaign, like Carter's in '76, was carefully crafted to capture the political moment, using (like Carter) a candidate about whom nothing was known. It worked beautifully until the very internet you credit with his rise did the homework the mainstream press wouldn't do and checked out the candidate's claims vs. reality.

Yes I have, but I'm not running for President. If I were and my mentor and spiritual guide were shown to be a bigoted idiot, I would have to seriously question my own judgment. Or I'd have to try to distance myself from my former very recent former mentor (even though I earlier said I wouldn't in a very good speech) because I knew all along what he was.

The message Obama needs to convey is: Take me now, whatever my flaws, or you will be saddled with people like Wright for decades. If we are disgusted by Wright, we shouldn't reject Obama. We should embrace him as the best hope we're ever going to have.

With respect, I think this is wrong. Not your conclusion, which is intriguing, but the actuality of what you are saying.

1- Black Americans of Wright's generation are aging. This is their last chance to have even the smallest influence in a national government, with a black President. This desperation is in part the problem with Reverend Wright. He's seizing his moment and how.

2- You are arguing for the politics of the cult of personality. What puts off many people is this notion, common in history, that there are "saviour" leaders who will be the panacea to our ills.

In fact, I see Senator Obama much more in the vein of a continental European-style politician, than even Kerry. He's De Gaulle in 1958 for some. The guy who can "save" his country from its self-destructive path.

You can see it in their personal campaign approaches.

Where Kerry floundered to have a message, Obama is almost too sure of his.

The problem is that like so many, I am pragmatic. I don't care for visions and destinies. Tell me what you will do, and I'll start to listen.

Ann Althouse wrote:Take me now, whatever my flaws, or you will be saddled with people like Wright for decades. If we are disgusted by Wright, we shouldn't reject Obama. We should embrace him as the best hope we're ever going to have.

What kind of nonsense is this? A man who can't see a racist America-hating demagogue under his nose for twenty years as the best hope we're every going to have?

Obama has demonstrated absolutely terrible judgment in his choice of mentors, advisors and friends.

What you're advocating -- a man who will solve our problems -- makes America seem like France at the collapse of the Second Empire and the early years of the Third Republic -- a Boulanger, the Man on a Horse.

And to hear Obama, it's all still Obama! The reason he's so made at Wright and throwing Wright under the bus -- if you listen to him carefully --- is because of the damage to the Obama campaign ("what we're trying to do here").

Blackmail -- exactly. (If a black reporter can say "Let's call a spade a spade," wince, and then accept the idiom as an idiom and soldier on, I can say "blackmail" without overtones. It's part of getting past all this crap.)

My point is that we are being distracted into choosing a president in order to quell a race problem that didn't exactly exist in such aggravated form before he ran. And that we should be choosing the best person to be president -- which could be Obama -- not the person whose election is going to prevent race riots that would break out if we don't.

Can you believe Al Sharpton virtually called Obama an Uncle Tom for speaking out against violence as a response to the Sean Bell verdict?!

I have to admit that finally discrediting and disempowering the Wrights and the Sharptons is an attractive prospect. But to be making this whole presidential election about that seems to me a huge red herring.

I do not understand why it is not enough for Obama to unequivocally denounce Wright's views, why he must denounce the man himself, and the distinction is considered "lawyerly." Christian teaching is "hate the sin, love the sinner," also "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Obama did it all by himself? Isn't he really just a(n exceptionally charismatic) Chicago machine politician?

I seem to recall a Bloom County cartoon where Bingley's dad is beating himself up because he can't bring himself to vote for Jesse Jackson. It's only after his black neighbor absolves him that he can feel free to admit that Jackson is loopy.

But what the neighbor says is that the first black President will be a conservative. While I'd always taken that to mean something akin to "only Nixon can go to China", maybe there's a little more to it.

Anyone think that Rice or Steele have connections with an America-hatin', racist church? Like, 20 year "spiritual mentor"-type connections?

It's the right-leaning minorities who are the real post-racial candidates. The left basically concedes this whenever they refer to such people as non-authentic, Uncle Toms, brown rice, oreos or whatever.

I think a lot of this is just blown out of proportion. I imagine Obama would be pretty middle of the road, if elected. More like a Clinton than a Carter. The press would fawn over him, so that no matter how bad things got, they would report it as things going well, and be forced to cast blame away.

Frankly, that would be refreshing after eight years of EVERYTHING IS BUSH'S FAULT.

There's some blackmail for you: Vote for Obama or endure more years of journalistic rage and ennui.

I do not understand why it is not enough for Obama to unequivocally denounce Wright's views, why he must denounce the man himself."

I don't understand why it is enough to denounce, period. Twenty years of being mentored by a nutty racist and NOW he says "oh, I disapprove of that"? It will take deeds, not just words, to establish himself as the race-neutral, open-minded individual he keeps claiming to be.

I do not understand why it is not enough for Obama to unequivocally denounce Wright's views, why he must denounce the man himself, and the distinction is considered "lawyerly." Christian teaching is "hate the sin, love the sinner," also "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Because a good number of Obama's critics are white racists who pretend to be Christians.

Ah yes, another disciple of the "unity" candidate in action. We don't need to look at Wright or Rezko or Auchi to take Obama's measure. We have Mort.

By your own admission, Fen, you have lost friends becaue of your racist comments towards Arabs, and you have threatened multiple times to falsely accuse me of molesting children. You have no moral credibility and no integrity.

Not necessarily. A lot of black commentators, including pastors of other churches, have backed him up in repudiating Wright.

Sharpton did an interesting maneuver on Larry King last night. He said, approximately, "I have to respect him for having the balls to risking losing the support of the black community." That's tricky, huh?

"There are black people like Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell, too."Indeed. If we do need to be cleansed of our sins etc. why not let the transubstantiator ALSO be an excellent candidate with wisdom, experience, and a history of getting results rather than wallowing in grievance?

Some of you feel we need a confessor because we hold ourselves to high standards, fair enough, but there's no reason we shouldn't likewise set high standards for our confessor if that person is also going to be our President. The two can coexist in the same person if we but choose such a person.

Personally I think allowing race as a factor in choosing a President is irrational, but if you must tip the scale use a little common sense. We're talking about the President here, not a symbol or figurehead, not a narrative of transcendence, but the actual working Leader of the Free World. You have to give that at least a little bit of weight.